PK htiw klaw eriF

How is that different from any other day Raithe?

I always thought the original was the best. 2 felt out of place both in terms of storytelling and gameplay, and 3 was more of the same imo.

Today I went to the gym and am currently in between classes, trying not to argue about a Powerpuff Girls cover with a pedant.

Has the Paladin's smite-like ability been covered yet? All I can recall is that it was named Flames of Devotion.

Party of 6. I don't think the animal companion can be considered a full party member, as it will likely not be able to use weapons and will die if the Ranger dies.

Bad finale or bad all the way through?

The closest comparison would be to the abilities such as "smite evil" and "rage" found in NWN2. You certainly don't need to activate those abilities in NWN2, but they do come in handy when you need them in. You probably could scrape through an easy or casual playthrough in PE without actively using these abilities, but should find yourself utilizing them regularly if encounters are well designed and the abilities are relatively plentiful.

I'm always down for a 3-way.

In anything but super-casual ****wit mode, yes you will.

This seems appropriate. PIV is always rape, ok? | radical wind Quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever read.

Chanters and Priests. Then Fighters and Barbarians. Then Wizards and Druids. And finish it off with the best, Paladins and Monks.

4E is regularly panned for being too much like a videogame and not enough like tabletop, which I sort of agree with(I prefer Pathfinder myself). That said, the parts that PoE is using from 4E are the things that would work best with a videogame(as the honorable Tamerlane has said) and most players hate new editions released directly after their preferred edition of D&D.

Awesome update, but Paladins are still better. Chanters and Priests next please.

How did we get from Objective XP to the Harm spell? Anyways, 3.5e's Harm is much better balanced than 2e's version, Objective XP will work fine unless implemented by idiots, and save or die spells are not compatible with PE's mechanics.

Yes. Nothing wrong with that. Yes. I agree that a character should be played in combat in a way consistent with their personality design. However, using a spell that a creature is immune to(or healed by, depending on which manual the stats were derived from) would be the action of an incredibly stupid character. Sort of like killing a fire elemental by using flame spells.

Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with. It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story. But Lephys is correct in this. That scenario is exploiting a loophole, as a Shadow Dragon is not only a powerful boss creature, but is also supposed to be immune to negative energy attacks(like Harm and Level Drain) as it is semi-undead*, as it is native to the Plane of Shadow. Just like a Monk being able to equip Keldorn's armor is a loophole, and wasn't intended as Monks are clearly prevented from wearing armor. I find that Baldur's Gate Trilogy is replayable not because there are loopholes that can be exploited, but because combat is fun and I can role-play a character I create. *Granted, this is from my experience with the superior 3 edition ruleset, but it makes sense as the species is tied to the Negative Energy Plane and the Plane of Shadow.

Yep. Co-signed. Bought off Steam, installing now.

Is this worth picking up?

I don't think save or die would work with PoE's mechanics, as all offensive attacks will either miss, graze, hit, or critical. There could be a critical causes death ability, but no all or nothing spells. Also, no spells like that cheese Imprisonment. Instant KO without save or spell resistance that can only be reversed by a 9th level spell is pretty **** design.

Windows 8?

Did I miss anything of note or are the same arguments being repeated ad nauseam?

No you said "some of those things" which is very vague. If you don't want people to misunderstand your meaning, try being more precise. How is his different than Baldur's Gate? You can reach the XP cap if you only play a fourth of the game and there are plenty of actions that are not rewarded with XP. Again, how is his different than Baldur's Gate? You don't need Varscona, The World's Edge, or Asheinda to beat the game, but they are quite nice to grab.

Yes, it is nice. Seeing as sneaking will be skill-intensive, and unless Obsidian are absolutely terrible designers dazzling the boss will be more complicated than just "Speech>10 = win". Which is why the vast majority of quests shouldn't(and likely won't) use lump sum and instead reward XP in intervals. Preferably said intervals would be tied to overcoming individual challenges within the quest and rewarded after completing those challenges. For example, you have a quest to rescue a lord's mistress from a mage. One challenge in the quest involves getting past the bandits the mage employs to guard his fortress. You have the option to (1)defeat the bandits in combat, (2)sneak past them, (3)bribe them, (4) poison them, or (5) trick them into fleeing. On completion of this challenge, you are rewarded a set amount of XP for completing the challenge regardless of method used. Options 1 and 2 require both player and character skill, options 3 and 4 will be resource draining, and if well-designed option 5 should be harder than "Speech>10 = win". Furthermore, the idea that quests should be completed without using any skill would be terrible design. I didn't like it because combat was the only method of conflict resolution available in the Baldur's Gate series for the vast majority of quests. For everything good about Baldur's Gate 2, there were very few quests where non-combat resolution was viable. I would have much preferred a system that rewarded players for completing challenges than method used to complete challenges. If you skip out on things in PoE, you will miss out on loot and XP as well. If you don't bother exploring, you will miss out on quests and loot too. You can play about a fourth of Baldur's gate and reach the 161,000 level cap. Only played 25% of vanilla BG and got all my XP! Winner!

Said combat encounter will likely be part of an objective, unless Obsidian happens to be bad designers. Seeing as the lead is the same guy behind IWD, I don't see that being an issue at all.

Objective XP is nice not because it makes the game easier(although a competent designer can still provide challenges, and if you think Obsidian isn't competent, giving them money to make a game is strange), but because it doesn't overly penalize or reward for role-playing in a role-playing game. If I'm playing a merciful hero, why should I get less XP because I decide to spare a foe I bested in combat? Why should someone who effortlessly butchers random villages be rewarded with XP for something that was at best a 15-minute click fest? Isn't a better option typing XP to completing objectives and rewarding them for that? If you enjoy the challenges of combat you can still take enjoyment out of the combat encounters, the only thing that changes for you is that XP is rewarded in bulk after completing an objective rather than in smaller increments everytime you slay a mook. If you dislike combat so much the only reason you grinded through it was to be rewarded with XP, you should try playing a game that you actually enjoy playing.